What have we learned from economic research on conflict? What key questions remain?
Editor's note: This week's podcast is part of series covering CEPR's Reducing Conflict and Improving Performance in the Economy (ReCIPE) programme. Dominic Rohner is the Research Director and Oliver Vanden Eynde the Head of Engagement at ReCIPE. This episode of VoxDevTalks is also available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.
Conflict has become one of the most pressing challenges for policymakers worldwide. Once a niche subject in economics, the study of armed conflict has rapidly expanded into a core discipline that interacts heavily with development economics. In this episode of VoxDevTalks, Tim Phillips speaks with Dominic Rohner and Oliver Vanden Eynde about the key takeaways from a series of ReCIPE pathfinding papers that summarise what we have learned from research on conflict, and the key questions which remain unanswered.
Why we need to classify conflicts
Traditional research has taken one of two extremes: large-scale global comparisons that flatten differences, or detailed case studies that provide depth but little generalisability.
By classifying conflicts, Dominic and Oliver's goal is to find a middle ground: a typology that avoids oversimplification but allows lessons to be drawn across multiple contexts.
“We cannot afford to do 200 studies separately, studies for each country. And so, by having a typology, a classification of countries and conflicts that are similar, we are able to do better in terms of external validity and of generalising the knowledge we get from individual studies.” Rohner
Research has identified three central dimensions that shape conflict risk: income, institutions, and state capacity. These were chosen because they are supported by robust empirical evidence and are policy relevant.
By classifying each dimension into ‘high’ or ‘low’, the authors created eight categories of countries, from poor, non-democratic, insecure states like Sudan or Yemen, to rich, democratic, secure states like the UK or France.
Quantity and quality of conflict
The typology shows that not all countries experience the same type or amount of conflict. Poor, insecure, and non-democratic countries see the most frequent conflicts, while rich democracies remain largely peaceful. But the analysis also reveals important differences in the nature of violence:
“Among countries that are poor, non-democratic and non-secure, we see that the main type of violence is of the rebellion type… as soon as you improve the security dimension, we see that the dominant type of violence becomes much more of the repression type… As we move to countries that score well in all three dimension, there the dominant type of violence becomes terrorism.” Vanden Eynde
Crucially, improvements in just one dimension reduce conflict risk only partially. Durable peace requires progress in income, democracy, and state capacity together.
Why one-size-fits-all peacebuilding doesn’t work
The research cautions against uniform policy prescriptions.
“If you just make a state stronger without making it more accountable and more inclusive… [it] may backfire, because it may lead to the kind of nasty state that represses its own people.” Rohner
Examples highlight the dangers of ignoring context. Cash transfers may reduce conflict in the Philippines, but in Niger they fuelled armed groups by unintentionally subsidising rebels. Similarly, mining royalties can empower communities under inclusive institutions but worsen violence where elites capture the rents.
The lesson is clear: peacebuilding policies must be adapted to country type.
Filling the gaps in conflict research
Conflict economics is a relatively new field for economists, only gaining traction in the early 2000s. This leaves major knowledge gaps.
“Conflict is a core development challenge… this is a relatively recent literature which has not seen a lot of coordinated attempts to push the agenda forward. And I think that’s actually one of the great things about the ReCIPE programme… it’s actually one of the first of such attempts of really trying to take stock and point out where remaining gaps are situated.” Vanden Eynde
The special issue of Economic Policy that their paper introduces surveys nine themes, from climate change to gender, mapping where evidence is strong and where new research is most needed.
Data remains a particular challenge. Many existing datasets, such as Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) or Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), rely heavily on press reports and may miss important dynamics. Collecting better household and firm-level data during conflicts is also essential to understand the economic toll.
The role of institutions and investment
Strong institutions remain central to conflict prevention, but they are difficult to measure and reform. The researchers position their work between macro-historical approaches and micro-RCTs, focusing on interventions that are both measurable and policy relevant, such as representation rules, natural resource governance, or security reform.
Investment and economic growth policies also interact with conflict. Some, such as natural resource projects, can exacerbate violence if poorly managed. Others, like infrastructure or private sector development, remain understudied despite their potential importance.
From research to policy impact
Ultimately, the ReCIPE programme aims to ensure research influences real-world decisions. Rohner stresses the need for economists to improve communication with policymakers and the public:
“Populists often are good at sensing what the problems are. Often the solutions they find are cynical, bad solutions that backfire… It is important that we improve our skills of communication… and part of what ReCIPE is about is exactly that.” Rohner
Historical examples such as Switzerland’s 19th century institutional reforms and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland show that policy choices can transform conflict-ridden societies into peaceful ones.
Meanwhile, international organisations increasingly demand conflict-sensitive analysis, recognising that development and fragility are inseparable. As aid budgets tighten, tailoring policies to context becomes more urgent than ever.
The future of research on conflict and development
The conversation closes with optimism: while challenges are immense, research shows that well-designed policies can reduce conflict risk. By bridging economics, political science, and development studies, and by classifying conflict in a way that is both rigorous and practical, the ReCIPE programme is helping to reshape how policymakers and researchers think about peacebuilding.
“By making the right political choices, we can make a real difference. And so it is very much worthwhile fighting for that.” Rohner